Technical Research Bulletin
VOLUME 5
2011
Portrait mummies from Roman Egypt: ongoing
collaborative research on wood identification
Caroline Cartwright, Lin Rosa Spaabæk
and Marie Svoboda
Summary The British Museum’s programme of wood identifications of mummy portraits from Roman Egypt
has advanced with collaborative research undertaken with the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek and National Museum
of Denmark in Copenhagen and with the J. Paul Getty Museum at the Villa, Los Angeles. Not only has the
number of wood identifications of mummy portraits increased significantly, with an additional 24 examples
bringing the total to 118, but this research has also enabled comparisons to be made between the selection of
wood for the portrait and the underlying mummy board onto which the individual represented in the portrait
was laid out (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek). Furthermore, also for the first time, it has been possible to sample for
wood identification a portrait that remains in situ placed over the face of a mummy and within its wrappings
(J. Paul Getty Museum). The results have important implications for the examples that cannot be sampled,
of which there are two from Hawara in the British Museum collections: the mummy of a young boy with a
portrait panel, dated to ad 100–120 (EA 13595) and the mummy of a Greek youth named Artemidorus with
a portrait panel from the early second century ad (EA 21810). Variable pressure scanning electron microscopy of minute wood samples illustrates the key anatomical features observed amongst the woods selected.
This continuing collaborative scientific research has provided new information regarding the technology,
composition and history of these ancient portrait mummies, as well as adding to the growing number of
wood species identifications.
INTRODUCTION
Mummy portraits found in Roman Egypt represent a fusion
of Egyptian funerary practices, Greek cultural traditions
and Roman artistic style. They are regarded as being the
only survivors of the renowned Graeco-Roman painting
tradition using tempera or wax (encaustic) techniques.
Such influence is more than artistic style alone, as scientific
investigation at the British Museum has shown that much
of the wood selected for these mummy portraits is not local
Egyptian timber but European (northern Mediterranean)
and Levantine and is heavily reliant on lime wood [1].
In 2008 the British Museum published updated results
from its programme of wood and pigment identifications
of mummy portraits from Roman Egypt [2]. As a consequence of that publication, further collaborative research on
wood type was undertaken with the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
and National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen and the
J. Paul Getty Museum at the Villa, Los Angeles. The objectives were to characterize the selection of woods used for
the portrait panels and to examine the rare occurrences of
portrait mummies in which the portrait and mummies are
still together.
WOOD IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY
Standard techniques of identification and terminology
determined by the International Association of Wood
Anatomists (IAWA) are usually adopted for the identification of modern wood [3]. For each sample, the key
features are compared with reference collection specimens and textual descriptions. This IAWA protocol may
be applied to archaeological or historical wood, providing
it is modified to accommodate the effects of the conditions of preservation, such as charring or desiccation. In
all cases, each sample is prepared to expose transverse,
radial longitudinal and tangential longitudinal sections or
surfaces for identification (TS, RLS and TLS respectively).
49
CAROLINE CARTWRIGHT, LIN ROSA SPAABÆK AND MARIE SVOBODA
table 1. Summary of identified wood from the mummy portraits in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, National Museum of Denmark and J. Paul
Getty Museum at the Villa, Los Angeles
Collectiona
Accession No.
Brief description
Findspot
Date
Wood identification
NCG
ÆIN 680
Portrait of a man
er-Rubayat
ad 100–125
Tilia sp., lime/linden
NCG
ÆIN 1426
Portrait of a man
Hawara
ad 100–125
Tilia sp., lime/linden
NCG
ÆIN 1426
Mummy board under body
associated with portrait
Hawara
ad 100–125
Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon
NCG
ÆIN 1473
Portrait of a man
ad 100–150
Tilia sp., lime/linden
NCG
ÆIN 681
Portrait of a man
er-Rubayat
ad 125–150
Tilia sp., lime/linden
NCG
ÆIN 683
Portrait of a woman
er-Rubayat
ad 125–150
Tilia sp., lime/linden
NCG
ÆIN 682
Portrait of a woman
er-Rubayat
ad 140–160
Tilia sp., lime/linden
NCG
ÆIN 684
Portrait of a man
er-Rubayat
ad 140–200
Tilia sp., lime/linden
NMD
3840
Portrait of a young man
er-Rubayat
ad 150–200?
Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig
NMD
3891
Portrait of a man with beard
er-Rubayat
ad 150–200?
Tilia sp., lime/linden
NMD
3892
Portrait of a young woman
er-Rubayat
ad 150–200?
Tilia sp., lime/linden
JPGM
73.AP.91
Portrait of a woman
Hawara (?)
ad 75–100
Tilia sp., lime/linden
JPGM
81.AP.42
Portrait of a woman
Unknown
c.ad 100–110
Tilia sp., lime/linden
JPGM
71.AP.72
Portrait of a young man
Hawara (?)
ad 100–125
Tilia sp., lime/linden
JPGM
73.AP.94
Portrait of a bearded man
Unknown
ad 140–160
Tilia sp., lime/linden
JPGM
91.AP.6
Portrait of a young man on
mummy of Herakleides
Unknown
c.ad 150
Tilia sp., lime/linden
JPGM
74.AP.11
Portrait of a bearded man
er-Rubayat (?)
c.ad 150–170
Tilia sp., lime/linden
JPGM
78.AP. 262
Portrait of a young boy
Unknown
c.ad 150–200
Tilia sp., lime/linden
JPGM
81.AP.29
Portrait of a woman
Unknown
c.ad 170–200
Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig
JPGM
79.AP.129
Portrait of a woman
er-Rubayat
c.ad 175–200
Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon
JPGM
79.AP.129
One proper left dowel and one
proper right dowel
er-Rubayat
c.ad 175–200
Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon
JPGM
74.AP.20
Triptych panel with portrait of
bearded man from shrine
Unknown
c.ad 180–200
Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig
JPGM
74.AP.21
Triptych panel with painted image
of Serapis
Unknown
c.ad 180–200
Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig
JPGM
74.AP.21
Two dowels from Serapis triptych
panel
Unknown
c.ad 180–200
Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon
JPGM
74.AP.21
Batten from Serapis triptych panel
Unknown
c.ad 180–200
Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig
JPGM
74.AP.22
Triptych panel with painted image
of Isis
Unknown
c.ad 180–200
Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig
JPGM
79.AP.142
Portrait of a man
er-Rubayat (?)
c.ad 220–250
Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon
JPGM
79.AP.141
Portrait of a bearded man
Unknown
c.ad 225–250
Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon
Note
a
NCG indicates the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen; NMD the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen; and JPGM the J. Paul Getty
Museum at the Villa, Los Angeles.
For modern and some types of archaeological wood, thin
sections with an approximate thickness of 12–14 μm are
cut on a base-sledge (or rotary) microtome, mounted on
glass microscope slides and examined by transmitted light
microscopy. A variation on these standard techniques
50
was applied to the mummy portraits on account of the
extremely small sample size permitted from such thin
boards of wood. In order for wood identification to be
carried out successfully, sampling had to take place in an
unobtrusive area that was free from pigments, binding
PORTRAIT MUMMIES FROM ROMAN EGYPT: ONGOING COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ON WOOD IDENTIFICATION
The wooden board underneath the mummy associated
with portrait ÆIN 1426 from Hawara was identified as
the imported Levantine softwood Cedrus libani, cedar of
Lebanon, on the basis of the anatomical features listed for
that species in the appendix.
National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen
figure 1. VP-SEM image showing the TLS of Tilia sp., lime wood,
with its characteristic spiral (helical) thickenings in vessels
media or any conservation consolidant, so that the fine
details of the cellular structure were not obscured. It was
not possible to remove the standard sample, measuring
25 × 25 × 50 mm, which is necessary for modern wood
thin sectioning. The tiny samples that could be taken were
treated as though they were charcoal fragments and were
examined using the Hitachi S-3700N variable pressure
scanning electron microscope (VP-SEM) to observe the
fine detail of the crucial diagnostic features under high
magnification. Charcoal samples are fractured by hand
to expose fresh TS, RLS and TLS for examination. Fracturing rather than cutting exposes the clearest view of the
cellular structure; cutting with a scalpel or microtome
blade creates fine debris that penetrates and fills the cells,
obscuring key anatomical structures. Fracturing was also
successful for the mummy portrait wood samples.
RESULTS
The results of the identifications from wood samples from
all three collections are summarized briefly here and are
given in full in Table 1, while the characteristic features used
to identify the three wood species present are provided in
the appendix.
Three wooden portrait panels were sampled in the collections of the National Museum of Denmark (abbreviated to
NMD hereafter). On the basis of the anatomical features
for the species given in the appendix, one main portrait
panel (3840), from er-Rubayat, was identified as the native
Egyptian wood Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig,1 while the
other two panels (3891 and 3892), also from er-Rubayat,
were identified as the European imported wood Tilia sp.,
lime/linden, Table 1.
J. Paul Getty Museum at the Villa, Los Angeles
Table 1 summarizes the results of the wood identifications
for the 14 samples of main portrait panel wood that were
taken from objects in the J. Paul Getty Museum at the Villa,
Los Angeles collections (abbreviated to JPGM hereafter),
and for additional samples taken from four dowels and one
batten.
Half the main portrait panels (i.e. seven) were identified as the European imported wood Tilia sp., lime/linden,
from diagnostic anatomical features listed in the appendix.
These mummy portraits made of lime wood, which appear
to group together chronologically as early examples, are
73.AP.91, 73.AP.94, 81.AP.42, 71.AP.72, 91.AP.6, 74.AP.11
and 78.AP.262. Four portrait panels (81.AP.29, 74.AP.20,
74.AP.21 and 74.AP.22) were identified as the indigenous Egyptian Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig, and three
portrait panels (79.AP.129, 79.AP.141 and 79.AP.142) as the
imported softwood (coniferous wood) Cedrus libani, cedar
of Lebanon.
One proper left dowel and one proper right dowel from
portrait 79.AP.129 were identified as cedar of Lebanon. The
two dowels from portrait 74.AP.21 were also identified as
cedar of Lebanon while the batten from the same portrait
was found to be made from sycomore fig wood.
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen
All of the main portrait panel wood samples (seven) from
the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek collections (abbreviated to NCG
hereafter) were identified as the European imported wood
Tilia sp., lime/linden, based on the anatomical features for
that species listed in the appendix. These mummy portraits
made of lime wood are labelled ÆIN 680–ÆIN 684, ÆIN
1426 and ÆIN 1473 in Table 1. A TLS of lime wood,
showing the characteristic helical thickening in the vessels,
is shown in Figure 1.
DISCUSSION
All seven portraits from the NCG collections were identified
as the European imported wood Tilia sp., lime/linden, Table
1. Five were from er-Rubayat (ÆIN 680, ÆIN 681, ÆIN 682,
ÆIN 683 and ÆIN 684), one from Hawara (ÆIN 1426) and
one from an unknown context (ÆIN 1473). This group of
portraits has been the subject of recent investigative conservation [4, 5]. The preferential selection of Tilia sp. wood for
51
CAROLINE CARTWRIGHT, LIN ROSA SPAABÆK AND MARIE SVOBODA
figure 2. Mummy ÆIN 1426 from Hawara showing the mummy
board wood exposed for sampling at the feet. Image: Lin Rosa
Spaabæk, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
mummy portrait panels has been well discussed previously
[1, 2], but the salient points are summarized here. The wide
distribution of lime across Europe makes it a ready source
of timber. As specimens of Tilia often reach heights of 30 m
(100 feet), with a diameter of 1.3 m (4 feet) and with a clear
bole for 15 m (50 feet), they yield good straight-grown timber
for boards and planks. The sapwood of Tilia is indistinguishable from its white to pale yellow heartwood, whose fine,
even texture turns pale brown on exposure to air. Tilia planks
benefit from being seasoned before use in order to maximize
mechanical and working properties and minimize susceptibility to insect attack, permeability or reduced durability.
Important for making portrait panels, Tilia wood performs
satisfactorily when sawn or cross-cut, and behaves well when
figure 3. Mummy ÆIN 1426 from Hawara showing the portrait panel that is made from lime wood. Image: Ole Haupt, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
52
PORTRAIT MUMMIES FROM ROMAN EGYPT: ONGOING COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ON WOOD IDENTIFICATION
figure 4. Back of the thin panel of lime wood used for the portrait of
a young man (71.AP.72). The curvature of the panel assisted in fitting
over the mummy head when the portrait was in situ. Image: Caroline
Cartwright. Collection: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection,
Malibu, California
glued, stained or polished. Tilia was clearly a very useful
timber for creating the fine, thin light panels for the mummy
portraits. The radial longitudinal plane of lime wood was
most often selected for the prepared surface onto which the
ground and paint layers were applied; all of the NCG portraits
panels were cut on the radial longitudinal plane.
The well-known artistic qualities and allure of mummy
portrait panels have, unfortunately, resulted in many being
separated upon discovery from the mummy on which they
were originally placed. Examples of intact portrait panels
on mummies, by comparison with separated panels, are
relatively few and it is rare to find an example where the
wooden mummy board is accessible for identification and
can be compared to the wood of its portrait panel, Figure
2. ÆIN 1426 from Hawara is one of these rare examples
and has yielded the extremely interesting identification of
different woods for the mummy board and portrait; the
board is made from Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon, while
the portrait panel is of Tilia sp., lime/linden, Figure 3. The
identification of Cedrus libani provokes several crucial questions. This imported timber has a long history of having
been traded into Egypt for high-status coffins and funerary
artefacts, particularly in the Middle Kingdom. Is its usage
to be interpreted as a continuation of this Egyptian funerary
tradition, or as another instance of the preferential selection
of European and Levantine woods over those that are indigenous to Egypt? This issue is raised again in a later section
in the context of the findings from the JPGM collections.
In the NMD collections one portrait panel from
er-Rubayat (3840) was identified as the native Egyptian
Ficus sycomorus. The choice of this indigenous timber is
somewhat paradoxical. Although much used for coffin
wood in Egypt, particularly in the Middle Kingdom, sycomore fig wood is light, not of high quality and is prone to
insect attack. The thick layers of gesso and pigments that
cover coffin wood planks reduce these drawbacks and Ficus
sycomorus is one of the relatively few local trees that grow
tall enough to yield long lengths of timber suitable for such
coffin planks. In the Middle Kingdom Ficus sycomorus also
figure 5. Mummy of a Greek youth named Artemidorus in a cartonnage body-case with mythological decoration in gold leaf and a Greek
inscription (EA 21810). The face is covered by a portrait panel painted
in encaustic
53
CAROLINE CARTWRIGHT, LIN ROSA SPAABÆK AND MARIE SVOBODA
figure 8. Side view of the triptych panel with a painted image
of Serapis (74.AP.21). The panel and batten are made from Ficus
sycomorus wood and the two dowels, one of which is shown, are
made from Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon. Note the unusually thick
portrait panel. Image: Marie Svoboda. Collection: The J. Paul Getty
Museum, Villa Collection, Malibu, California
figure 6. Herakleides portrait mummy (91.AP.6) with an arrow
indicating the location from which a wood sample was taken. Image:
Marie Svoboda. Collection: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection, Malibu, California
figure 7. VP-SEM image showing a RLS with scalloped torus margins
of bordered pits in the radial walls of tracheids, which are diagnostic
of Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon wood
had considerable religious significance, when it, and its
fruits in particular, were associated with the goddess Nut.
Being such an important tree in Egyptian funerary practices
of earlier periods, its use for mummy portrait panels could
be explained in terms of a fusion of old and new traditions
in Roman Egypt. However, while Middle Kingdom carpenters manufacturing coffins could use Ficus sycomorus wood
54
to its best advantage, carpenters preparing portrait panels in
the Roman period faced a greater problem; as panels made
from sycomore fig needed to be much thicker than those of
other woods, notably Tilia, they could not easily be induced
to curve snugly over the mummy head in the same manner
as a thin lime wood panel. There may be no single reason
for the choice of Ficus sycomorus wood for portrait panels
and selection may have been reliant on money and status, or
whether the panel was used as a portrait in the individual’s
house before death, as discussed below.
The remaining two portraits in the NMD collections
(3891and 3892), also from er-Rubayat, were identified as
the European imported wood Tilia sp., lime, Table 1.
The seven main portrait panels in the JPGM collections
that were identified as lime wood from Tilia sp. – possibly
imported from the northern Mediterranean – also appear
to cluster together chronologically as early examples, Table
1. It will prove interesting to see whether this will still hold
true as information is gathered from a wider corpus of
material, but as the precise dating of these portraits is still
rather elusive, it may be too soon to attempt to match wood
species, pigments, paint media, findspots and chronology.
As mentioned earlier, some panels were very thin
indeed, which clearly demonstrates the potential to curve
lime wood panels, as exemplified by portrait panel 71.AP.72
from this group at the JPGM, Figure 4.
One of the most exciting opportunities in this present
study was the possibility to sample the wood of a portrait
still in situ on the mummy of Herakleides (91.AP.6) in the
JPGM collections. This mummy has been the subject of
recent scientific investigation [6, 7], which has paved the way
for comparing these results with data obtained from similar
red-shrouded portrait mummies in collections worldwide. In
many instances, intact portrait mummies do not offer opportunities for wood sampling as there is no suitable sampling
spot available because the panel is tightly wrapped in linen.
There are two such examples from Hawara in the British
Museum collections: the mummy of a young boy dated to
ad 100–120 (EA 13595) and the mummy of a Greek youth
named Artemidorus (EA 21810) from the early second
century ad, Figure 5. In the case of the Herakleides mummy,
it was extremely fortunate that one minute sampling location
PORTRAIT MUMMIES FROM ROMAN EGYPT: ONGOING COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ON WOOD IDENTIFICATION
figure 9. Mummy portrait of a young woman (81.AP.29) dated to c.ad 170–200. The portrait, which
is from er-Rubayat, is executed in tempera on a Ficus sycomorus wood panel. Object: 34.9 (h) × 21.3
(w) cm. Collection: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection, Malibu, California
was available inside a split in the panel (Figure 6), so that
an unequivocal identification of imported Tilia sp. wood
could be made. The full body computed tomography scans
of Herakleides were extremely informative [6, 7], but unfortunately were not sufficiently detailed to permit identification
of the mummy board wood.
Also in the JPGM collections are three portrait panels
that were identified as the imported coniferous wood
Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon: 79.AP.129 (er-Rubayat),
79.AP.141 (unknown findspot) and 79.AP.142 (possibly
er-Rubayat). Two dowels in 79.AP.129 were also of cedar of
Lebanon. The features that were crucially diagnostic in the
identification of this species – scalloped torus margins on
bordered pits in tracheid radial walls (see appendix) – can
clearly be seen in the VP-SEM image, Figure 7.
As discussed above, Cedrus libani had been imported
into Egypt for high-status funerary coffins and associated
funerary objects from the Middle Kingdom onwards, so
these present findings again raise the question of whether
its selection for Roman period mummy portraits is a
55
CAROLINE CARTWRIGHT, LIN ROSA SPAABÆK AND MARIE SVOBODA
table 2. Summary of all 118 mummy portrait panel wood identifications carried out by the British Museum to date
Species
Number of examples identifed
Tilia sp., lime/linden
86
Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig
16
Quercus sp., oak
8
Cedrus libani, cedar of Lebanon
3
Taxus baccata, yew
2
Abies sp., fir
2
Indeterminate
1
continuation of that Egyptian preference, or should be
interpreted as an indicator of the Graeco-Roman trend
towards favouring timbers that can be split easily along
the radial longitudinal plane to provide thin panels with
an even, fine-grained surface for painting. Clearly if there
were comparable Graeco-Roman wood panel paintings
surviving from Europe, more conclusive interpretation
might be possible.
There is an unusual group of three portrait panels in the
JPGM collections, sometimes described as a triptych or
shrine (74.AP.20–74.AP.22). The fact that each is executed
on a sycomore fig panel, with 74.AP.21 having a sycomore
fig batten and two cedar of Lebanon dowels (Figure 8),
seems to suggest their association to one another and also
resurrects the debate over whether some portraits, particularly those made from Ficus sycomorus, were intended
for use in the home and then may (or may not) have been
placed over the mummy in the funerary rite [1, 2]. In the
British Museum collections is an example of a small portrait
painted on sycomore fig encased in a frame made from
wood of the same species (GRA 1889,1018.1), although
the frame and panel do not originate from the same piece
of wood [1]. This portrait, in common with an increasing
figure 10. VP-SEM image showing the TS of Ficus sycomorus, sycomore fig, with its characteristic structure of wide-banded fibres and
axial parenchyma, mutiseriate rays and large vessels (sometimes in
clusters)
56
number of portrait panels that have been examined in
detail, has dowels. The presence of dowels and battens in
mummy portraits may imply that the wooden panel had
some other primary function before it was employed for
the mummy portrait or that the portrait was painted for
some other purpose and reused in the funerary rites on the
death of the sitter.
The use of different timbers for dowels, battens and other
forms of connective carpentry has been covered in detail,
for example in [1]. From the Middle Kingdom onwards,
carpenters tended to make use of off-cuts of high quality
wood, such as cedar of Lebanon, and also often specifically
chose woods that were not of the same species as that used
for the main part of the artefact. This works well when the
different properties of the various species selected respond
in a way that creates a tight fit, locking the components
together. It also enables hard dense woods such as acacia
(Acacia spp.) and Christ’s thorn (Ziziphus spina-christi),
which are normally only available as short lengths of timber,
to be used to their maximum effectiveness.
This triptych is not the only example of the use of Ficus
sycomorus in the JPGM collections as the tempera portrait
of a woman from an unknown findspot (81.AP.29: Figure
9) was also executed on a sycomore fig panel, Figure 10.
The results of 94 wood identifications from mummy
portrait panels were published by the British Museum in
2008 [2], but this present collaborative research undertaken with the NCG, NMD and the JPGM has added
a further 24 identifications of portrait panel wood,
bringing the total number of wood identifications on
portrait panels to 118. In addition, wood identifications
were made of one associated mummy board, four dowels
and a batten. The results for all the portrait panels so far
examined are summarized in Table 2. Unsurprisingly,
imported Tilia sp. continues to predominate (86 examples of a total of 118). The indigenous Ficus sycomorus lies
second (16 out of 118), followed by Quercus sp. (oak: 8),
Cedrus libani (3), Taxus baccata (yew: 2), Abies sp. (fir: 2)
and indeterminate (1).
PORTRAIT MUMMIES FROM ROMAN EGYPT: ONGOING COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ON WOOD IDENTIFICATION
CONCLUSIONS
In previous publications one of the authors (CRC) has argued
why the properties of Tilia species clearly make it a very useful
timber for creating the fine, thin light panels for mummy
portraits [1, 2]. The radial longitudinal plane of lime wood
was most often selected for the prepared surface onto which
the ground and paint layers were applied. There are clear
anatomical reasons why this was an informed choice: the
even nature of the ray parenchyma cells in their characteristic
brick-like arrangement oriented at right angles to the equally
evenly distributed vessels, fibres and axial parenchyma cells
results in a highly consistent and uniform cellular structure
that will perform predictably and reliably when sawn, split or
carved [2]. Cedar of Lebanon wood was also very suitable for
splitting along the rays into thin sheets to be used for portrait
panels. The use of cedar of Lebanon provokes an interesting
debate. On the one hand, from the NCG mummy board, it
could be argued that its use here merely extends the traditional and long-established import into Egypt (from Lebanon
and Syria) of this prized, aromatic timber for prestige coffins
and funerary artefacts from the Middle Kingdom onwards.
While its use could simply be interpreted as a marker of high
status, the results from the JPGM suggest that this species
– in common with lime, fir, yew and oak – was part of the
trend of preferred use of European and Levantine wood by
mummy portrait craftsmen arising from their familiarity
with the properties of such materials.
It is clear that the properties of lime wood are ideal for
portrait boards and that Tilia species were readily available
in Europe including Greece and Italy, but are these the main
reasons for preferring Tilia above other woods for mummy
portraits? This may be the case, but the JPGM results strongly
infer that the story may be rather more complicated. It is
possible that further consideration should be given to the
likelihood of discrete centres of production of mummy
portraits within which the craftsmen preferred specific
woods. There are hints of that possibility already in this study,
to which should be added the observation that very different
methods were used for the painted surfaces, including
encaustic, tempera and the application of gold leaf for decorative emphasis. It may not simply be an issue of some families
being able to afford more expensive mummy portraits than
others, but that certain workshops had their own distinctive
preferences for wood type, method of painting, style and
execution, from which their clients might choose.
APPENDIX
Characteristic anatomical features of Tilia sp. (lime/linden)
Distinct growth ring boundaries marked by two to three
rows of thick-walled, radially flattened cells and distinctly
flaring rays; diffuse to semi ring porous wood; vessels in
multiples – mostly radial rows but sometimes in clusters;
angular or polygonal vessel outline; simple perforation
plates; alternate intervessel pits; vessel-ray pits with distinct
borders (similar to intervessel pits); crossfield pits much
smaller than intervessel pits; conspicuous spiral (helical)
thickenings present in narrow and wide vessel elements
(Figure 1); very thin-walled fibres or fibres of medium
wall thickness; libriform fibres non-septate; distinctly
bordered fibre pits common in both radial and tangential
walls; banded axial parenchyma present in short, uniseriate, oblique-to-tangential bands (often also marginal
or terminal up to three cells wide); apotracheal axial
parenchyma present in diffuse and diffuse-in-aggregates
distribution; axial parenchyma as strands; multiseriate
rays (one to five cells wide); rays of two distinct sizes;
mainly homocellular rays with procumbent cells; storied
structure present (axial parenchyma, vessel elements,
some rays and some fibres).
Characteristic anatomical features of
Cedrus libani (cedar of Lebanon)
Distinct growth rings; a gradual change from early wood
to late wood tracheids; one traumatic vertical resin
canal; scalloped torus margins on bordered pits in tracheid radial walls; cupressoid, piceoid and taxodioid ray
to tracheid crossfield pitting; tracheids usually with a
single row of bordered pits, rarely biseriate and alternate;
uniseriate rays; nodular end walls of axial parenchyma
cells; horizontal walls pitted in axial parenchyma only in
growth ring boundary; in rays, end walls nodular with
indentures; horizontal walls pitted in rays; marginal ray
tracheids present.
Characteristic anatomical features of
Ficus sycomorus (sycomore fig)
Indistinct growth ring boundaries; diffuse-porous wood;
vessels in multiples – in short radial rows or small clusters; thin-walled tyloses present in some vessels; simple
perforation plates; alternate non-vestured intervessel
pits; vessel-ray pits simple or with reduced borders;
some lacticifers present; septate and non-septate fibres
of medium wall thickness; fibre pits simple to finely
bordered; multiseriate rays of two distinct widths; some
rays 4–10 seriate; some rays greater than 10 seriate;
heterocellular rays with square and upright cells only on
marginal rows; sheath cells present; banded axial parenchyma with most bands greater than four seriate; scanty
paratracheal or vasicentric axial parenchyma; fusiform
cells common; prismatic calcium oxalate crystals occasionally present in chambered cells in axial parenchyma
and in ordinary cells in ray parenchyma; no silica crystals observed.
57
CAROLINE CARTWRIGHT, LIN ROSA SPAABÆK AND MARIE SVOBODA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are due to: the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek for funding the visit
to Copenhagen by Caroline Cartwright and for access to collections,
especially Mogens Jørgensen; the National Museum of Denmark for
access to collections by Caroline Cartwright and Lin Rosa Spaabæk;
and the J. Paul Getty Museum at the Villa, Los Angeles, for funding the
visit by Caroline Cartwright and for access to collections, especially
Jerry Podany. All three institutions are also thanked for kind permission to take wood samples for examination.
2.
3.
4.
5.
AUTHORS
Caroline Cartwright ([email protected]) is a
scientist in the Department of Conservation and Scientific Research
at the British Museum. Lin Rosa Spaabæk ([email protected]) is a
conservator at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek and National Museum of
Denmark, both in Copenhagen. Marie Svoboda (MSvoboda@getty.
edu) is associate conservator in the Antiquities Conservation Department at the J. Paul Getty Museum at the Villa, Los Angeles.
6.
7.
Roman Egypt, ed. M. Bierbrier, British Museum Press, London
(1997) 106–111.
Cartwright, C.R. and Middleton, A.P., ‘Scientific aspects of ancient
faces: mummy portraits from Egypt’, British Museum Technical
Research Bulletin 2 (2008) 59–66.
Wheeler, E.A., Pearson, R.G., LaPasha, C.A., Zack, T. and Hatley,
W., Computer-aided wood identification, North Carolina Agriculture Research Service Bulletin 474 (1986).
Spaabæk, L.R., ‘Deterioration and damage on encaustic mummy
portraits’, in Decorated surfaces on ancient Egyptian objects, ed.
J. Dawson, C. Rozeik and M.M. Wright, Archetype Publications,
London (2010) 122–129.
Spaabæk, L.R., ‘Conservation of mummy portraits at the Ny
Carlsberg Glypotek’, in Living images: Egyptian funerary portraits
in the Petrie Museum, ed. J. Picton, S. Quirke and P.C. Roberts,
Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek CA (2007) 113–143.
Svoboda, M. and Walton, M., ‘Material investigation of the
J. Paul Getty Museum’s red-shroud mummy’, in Decorated surfaces
on ancient Egyptian objects, ed. J. Dawson, C. Rozeik and M.M.
Wright, Archetype Publications, London (2010) 148–155.
Corcoran, L.H. and Svoboda, M., Herakleides: a portrait mummy
from Roman Egypt, Getty Publications, J. Paul Getty Museum, Los
Angeles (2010).
NOTE
REFERENCES
1. Cartwright, C.R., ‘Egyptian mummy portraits: examining the
woodworkers’ craft’, in Portraits and masks: burial customs in
58
1. The taxon Ficus sycomorus is rather confusing and is frequently
misspelled and misused. Ficus sycomorus is a fig tree from the
Moraceae family and is totally unrelated to the European sycamore or field maple, which belongs to the genus Acer from the
Sapindaceae family (formerly in the Aceraceae family).